Decision

This is a motion brought by Teva, the Defendant and Plaintiff by counterclaim, seeking leave to serve the reply expert reports of Dr. Suzanne Allain, Dr. James Simm, and Dr. Herman Vromans [the Reply Reports]. ... Teva claims it was unable to fully appreciate Janssen’s position on validity of the ‘335 Patent prior to receiving Janssen’s expert reports, and therefore should be allowed to serve the Reply Reports. ... This Court cannot allow case-splitting or improper reply evidence seeking to bolster a party’s evidence in chief or merely rebut an opposing party’s evidence, particularly in light of the “litigation culture change prescribed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v Maudlin, 2014 SCC 7” (Amgen at para 24). For the foregoing reasons, Teva’s motion to file the reply evidence is dismissed. The motion to amend for the limited purpose set out above is allowed.

Recent Posts

Contributions

Blog

About Me

I am a partner at DLA Piper (Canada) LLP practicing in the area of intellectual property. Material on this website are my own views and do not reflect the position of DLA Piper (Canada) LLP, any of its member firms around the world, or any of its clients. IPPractice.ca grew out of my hobby to gather and share interesting updates on intellectual property to friends and colleagues. This website does not provide legal advice, and should not be relied upon. Hope you enjoy the site - Alan Macek